CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013 threatened her when they were imprisoned; she had not received any other threats from that person because she had changed her telephone number; and Mr. P.B. and Ms. B.O. had relatives in Lagos and Benin City, Nigeria, who the author had met several times prior to her departure from Nigeria. Furthermore, in Nigeria, she could not report threats to the authorities since they were corrupt and could be bribed to look for her. Finally, she argued that she could not live in any other part of Nigeria but Lagos or Benin City because of the ongoing fighting between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria. 2.7 On 4 August 2011, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the author’s application for asylum pursuant to section 7 of the Aliens Act. The author appealed the decision before the Danish Refugee Appeals Board. 2.8 On 29 December 2011, the author gave birth to a baby. The baby’s father is also a former asylum seeker in Denmark. 2.9 On 15 March 2012, the Appeals Board upheld the Immigration Service decision of 4 August 2011. The Appeals Board reviewed the author’s accounts and found that she was not at any real risk of persecution in Nigeria. It pointed out that, although she claimed that she had received a death threat from Mr. P.B.’s brother on one occasion, she had not provided any detailed information and had failed to render probable that he wanted to or was able to carry out his threat. The Appeals Board also pointed out that reports1 on the human rights situation in Nigeria indicated that the Nigerian authorities were actively fighting against human trafficking and its consequences. It provided the author with a list of organizations in Nigeria that assisted victims of human trafficking and prostitution. The Appeals Board also noted that the author had declared that she had never been in conflict with the authorities in Nigeria, nor detained, arrested, charged or sentenced, nor experienced any house searches, nor been a member of a political or religious party or organization, nor had she participated in any activities or demonstrations organized by them. 2.10 On 13 December 2012, the author requested the Appeals Board to re-open her asylum proceedings. She claimed that she had become highly profiled since a Danish television channel had discussed her asylum proceedings in a televised broadcast on 12 December 2012. She felt that she would be at risk of persecution by the human trafficking network in Nigeria and that the Appeals Board decision of 15 March 2012 had failed to consider the protection she needed as a witness in a case of human trafficking before the judicial authority of Denmark. She further submitted that other victims of human trafficking had been granted international protection in other Nordic countries. 2.11 On 3 April 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to re-open the author’s case and ordered her to leave the country voluntarily within the deadline established by its decision of 15 March 2012. The Appeals Board considered that her request did not provide significant new information for it to re-examine her case. It also pointed out that: her allegation about a human trafficking network in Nigeria lacked details and was vague; she was threatened by telephone on only one occasion by Mr. P.B.’s brother; there was no information about reprisals against her family; and there was no information that she had been threatened again, even after Mr. P.B. and Ms. B.O. had been released from prison in March 2011, nor about how she would be at risk of persecution by human traffickers either in Nigeria or in Denmark. The Appeals Board also noted that, according to different reports, the Nigerian authorities had set up measures to fight against human trafficking and that the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) and non1 4 The authorities referred to United States of America, Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 10th edition (14 June 2010); and the Danish Immigration Service report on its fact-finding mission to Nigeria (7 April 2009).